Site icon Fitzpatrick Informer

Central importance of Sun-Tzu’s ‘Art of War’

By Christopher Story
July 15, 2019 Anno Domini

Excerpted from Christopher Story’s The European Union Collective: Enemy of Its Member States (1997),  pgs. 56-59

The blindness of the West, and its arrogant assumption that ‘we won the Cold War’ particularly reconfirms the timeless effectiveness of the advice given by the ancient Chinese military strategist, Sun-Tzu, in his treatise entitled ‘The Art of War’:

“Pretend inferiority and encourage your enemy’s arrogance” .

It is known that ‘The Art of War’ was required reading in the East German and Soviet armed forces. As Anatoliy Golitsyn explains in New Lies for Old: “The ancient Chinese treatise on strategy and deception, Sun -Tzu’s The Art of War, translated into Russian by N.I. Konrad in 1950 (shortly after the Communist victory in China), was retranslated into German in 1957 by the Soviet specialist Y. I. Sidorenko, with a foreword by the Soviet military strategist and historian General Razin. It was [also] published in East Germany by the East German Ministry of Defense and was prescribed for study in East German military academies: [see facsimile on page 57]. A new translation and other studies of Sun-Tzu were published in Peking in 1957 and 1958 and in Shanghai in 1959. Mao Tse-Tung is known to have been influenced by Sun-Tzu in his conduct of the civil war”.

Illusions such as those dispensed by the author of the article cited above from “The Times’ of London are fostered by, and depend upon, the continued success of the Russian ‘weak look’ strategic deception – which is based upon the practical applic- ation in modern conditions of Sun-Tzu’s military deception aphorisms:

‘All warfare is based on deception’.

‘Therefore, when capable, feign incapacity; when active, inactivity’.
‘When near, make it appear that you are far away; when far away, that you are near’.
‘Offer the enemy a bait to lure him; feign disorder and strike him’. ‘Pretend inferiority and encourage his arrogance’.
‘Keep him under strain and wear him down’.
‘When he is united, divide him’.
‘Attack the enemy’s strategy’.
‘Disrupt the enemy’s alliances’.
‘If I am able to determine the enemy’s dispositions while at the same time I conceal my own, then I can concentrate and he must divide. And if I concentrate while he divides, I can use my entire strength to attack a fraction of his’.
‘Make the devious route the most direct and turn misfortune to advantage’.

‘The ultimate in disposing one’s troops is to be without ascertainable shape. Then the most penetrating spies cannot pry in, nor can the wise lay plans against you’.

‘Subtle and insubstantial, the expert leaves no trace; divinely mysterious, he is inaudible. Thus he is master of his enemy’s fate’ .

‘Active measures’ operations against Western leaders

The successful implementation, through the creative (Leninist) application of Sun-Tzu’s teachings and complementary Leninist dialectical strategic deception principles, of the inverted pyramid of lies called ‘perestroika’, is all the more remarkable in that, as has been shown, absolutely faithful adherence to Leninist revolutionary methods had repeatedly been asserted in public by the Communist leaders and the 1991 that she had concluded that ‘Gorbachev isn’t a Leninist any more’ – merely weeks before Gorbachev and the KGB executed the biggest and boldest Leninist Bolshevik provocation to date: the fake August coup. Prominent among the planners and implementers of this provocation was the KGB veteran Yevgeniy Primakov, a leading KGB strategist, who flew back to Moscow late in the evening of 19th August, thus conveying the impression that he had not been involved – yet issued a statement on the following day asserting that Gorbachev was not ill but was being held captive.

(Original Caption) Chequers, England: Soviet Politburo member Mikhail Gorbachev meets British Prime Minister Thatcher at the Prime ministers country home Chequers, 12/16. Mr. Gorbachev and his wife Raima took lunch with Mrs. Thatcher. Mikhail Gorbachev heads a delegation of 30 on an eight day tour of Britain.

The Soviets have even gone so far as to hint in public that both the British Prime Minister and President Reagan were the target of ‘active measures’ operations by Soviet intelligence ahead of the controlled ‘Break with the Past’. The nature of these ‘active measures’ is not known (although in Mrs. Thatcher’s case, the murder shortly before she came to office in 1979 of her intelligence adviser, Airey Neave, in a car bomb placed in the House of Commons car park, may have been an element of them – since Neave was well equipped to warn her against being taken in by the Soviets); but ‘active measures’ covers everything from the fabrication of forgeries to the administration of mind-altering psychotropic drugs, to sexual allure or entrapment, to assassination.

It is the Author’s view that analysts have overlooked one important reason why Gorbachev was selected by the Kremlin’s strategy collective as General Secretary following a prolonged period of apparent infighting which resulted in Gorbachev’s alleged rival, Grigory Romanov, being expelled from the Kremlin in the summer of 1985, framed as an alcoholic (which he was not) and forcibly confined to a hospital for alcoholics [see pages XXXX-XXXXII]. This is that he possesses what can only be described as a kind of demonic sexual allure: and the strategists’ key target at the time was Mrs. Thatcher. She immediately fell for Gorbachev’s ‘charms’, notwithstanding his boorish behaviour during his visit to London in late 1984, described on pages 17- 18. The Author is personally acquainted with two American women, not known to each other, each of whom has separately testified to Gorbachev’s sexual magnetism, which the late Malachi Martin described as being sinister. (One of these women also testifies to the near-freezing temperature immediately surrounding the person of MVD General Eduard Shevardnadze, reported on page 49; but the other lady is not one of the two who have separately experienced that distsurbing phenomenon).

On 19th February 1991, ‘Izvestia’ reported that ‘in the United States and Britain, “Active Measures” against President Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher had limited success’ . The inclusion of the qualification ‘limited’ here should perhaps be disregarded: the proper translation of this statement from the Aesopian language used by ‘Izvestia’ is that the operations were successful. The fact that they were mounted, and have even been openly acknowledged, is of course significant enough.

Mrs Thatcher failed to understand that she had been duped by Mr Gorbachev, as she made clear to the author in July 1991. During an interview in which the Author explained details of the Soviet ‘bilateral treaty offensive’ and spoke of Golitsyn’s work, which the former Prime Minister dismissed, Mrs [now Lady] Thatcher not only remarked: ‘I don’t think Gorbachev is a Leninist any more’, but also added the following corollary: ‘I don’t think we have been deceived—at least, I hope we haven’t’ [see page 19]. As the Author wrote in the Editor’s Foreword to Golitsyn’s book The Perestroika Deception, this qualifying afterthought clearly implied ‘a niggling doubt that the West might indeed have fallen victim to Soviet strategic deception’. Necessarily, by then the consequences of Lady Thatcher’s mistakes were crowding in on the West like a gigantic thunderstorm. But if she had entertained such doubts while still in power, it was surely her duty to have had them investigated.

That failure was undoubtedly Lady Thatcher’s worst: and the Author has elsewhere described the British Prime Minister’s careless accommodation of Gorbachev and all his Leninist lies as ‘a millennial strategic error’. A second strategic error of comparable proportions concerned Europe: though troubled by the implic- ations of the ‘European project’, she pushed through the 1986 Single European Act which paved the way for the Collective’s Maastricht Treaty. In the end, she became an enthusiastic supporter of the Leninist deception strategy of ‘convergence’. She had already permitted her Foreign Secretary Sir Geoffrey Howe , to go along with the Foreign Office’s plan to hand the priceless capitalist jewel of Hong Kong over to the Communist Chinese, a grand betrayal which could hardly have been urged upon her other than by forces aware of the ‘convergence’ framework and agenda. Lady Thatcher’s most recently monitored geopolitical stance is that ‘Russia isn’t a threat any more’—just as ‘Gorbachev isn’t a Leninist any more’.
Exit mobile version